The Reef Ain't Dead

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by downunder

All with plenty to contribute from actual in person GBR observations. [emoji3]

Mehh, science knows best...
http://ocean.si.edu/ecosystems/coral...ing-going-gone

Yet a*recent study*published in the*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*suggests that large portions of the GBR have been on a trajectory of decline for much of this period. Between 1986 and 2012, over half of the living coral has been lost. If current trends continue, over 90 percent or more of the*living coral*will be gone from the central and southern parts of the reef in just 10 years.

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Well maybe.

But perhaps they are folks who don't have a clue about the science but have been fooled into buying a particular soap powder because the nice lady in the TV ad said their clothes would come out of the machine "whiter and brighter than brand new" and discovered that they don't and that the extant AGW/CC propaganda drive looks remarkably similar to the soap advertising campaign that fooled them into buying a fairly useless soap powder.

There are many paths to scepticism and enthusiastically promoted but non performing soap powder is one of them.

Or perhaps they're folks who actually read all the Climategate emails and realize that "scientists" are not actually any more honest than any other segment of the population, especially when one paradigm is massively incentivized and supported by a vast amount of propaganda, while another commensurately scorned and disinsentivized.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

* "GLOBAL WARMING FACTS VERSUS FAITH O N E A S T R O N A U T ’ S V I E W S”
➥ http://www.waltercunningham.com/factsfaith.pdf

A 10 year-old blast from the past, courtesy of the Heartland Institute.


Oh, the things they believed back then. It was a simpler time.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Mehh, science knows best...
http://ocean.si.edu/ecosystems/coral...ing-going-gone

Quote:
Yet a*recent study*published in the*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*suggests that large portions of the GBR have been on a trajectory of decline for much of this period. Between 1986 and 2012, over half of the living coral has been lost. If current trends continue, over 90 percent or more of the*living coral*will be gone from the central and southern parts of the reef in just 10 years.


So according to the National Academy of Sciences there are only two years to go before the GBR is mostly dead and gone. Either that or Shellenberger's warnings about climate science losing credibility over alarmism will be vindicated (once again). For the Academy's sake, I hope they've (credibly) revised their prediction since 2012.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Tillikum

Or perhaps they're folks who actually read all the Climategate emails and realize that "scientists" are not actually any more honest than any other segment of the population, especially when one paradigm is massively incentivized and supported by a vast amount of propaganda, while another commensurately scorned and disinsentivized.

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

A three-part Penn State University report cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."

It's almost like they applied Mike's nature trick by avoiding independent reviews. What a travesty.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It's almost like they applied Mike's nature trick by avoiding independent reviews. What a travesty.

It almost like you dismiss the findings just as you dismiss climate science. Wjat would you regard as independent review?

You even know what Mike's nature trick was?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It almost like you dismiss the findings just as you dismiss climate science. Wjat would you regard as independent review?



You even know what Mike's nature trick was?

The trick was switching from tree rings to temperature records and the travesty was not being able to eliminate the grapes of wrath heat from the first half of the twentieth century. Next question.

[Reefmagnet]

And it may surprise you, as I have stated a number of times before, I do not dismiss climate science. I dismiss overt doom saying such as the fake claims of the extent of GBR reef damage and the causes of it that seemingly goes hand in hand with a whole bunch of alleged scientists scrambling over themselves in the pursuit of sound bites and fortune.

Forget about (other) pollution, resource depletion, loss of natural habitat, overfishing and mass extinction. Pictures of a raging forest fire sell more virtual papers, apparently.

Some self promoting members of the scientific community need to stop hiding the decline and focus on these equally, if not more important issues at hand. Besides, we can only be told so many times "the reef is dead" and "we only have 10 years to act" before the cries of "Wolf!" become routinely ignored (something I suspect is already happening in certain demographics).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... a whole bunch of alleged scientists scrambling over themselves in the pursuit of sound bites and fortune.

...Right... sounds a bit like Ridd, no? Fortunes!

Forget about (other) pollution, resource depletion, loss of natural habitat, overfishing and mass extinction. Pictures of a raging forest fire sell more virtual papers, apparently.

Some self promoting members of the scientific community need to stop hiding the decline and focus on these equally, if not more important issues at hand.

Plenty of scientists are doing exactly that. Where have you been?

It's been my experience that those railing loudest and longest against AGW are usually also the ones who don't really give a toss about all those other things you mention... unless/until their own piece of heaven is downwind of a smokestack or a dump, or it's their beach being eroded.

Thing is, all those things - pollution, resource depletion, loss of natural habitat, overfishing and mass extinction - have an almost identical solution in common: we need to stop consuming everything around us so quickly and making a mess in the process. Every move we make must be done with sustainability and minimal harm in mind. Anything done to fix any one of those usually helps at least a few of the others on your list as well.

tl;dr: you'd be railing against some other environmental concern if CC wasn't such a popular and convenient target, egged on by tribal allegiances, and industrial lobbyists and their alternate "institutes".

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...Right... sounds a bit like Ridd, no? Fortunes!

Plenty of scientists are doing exactly that. Where have you been?

It's been my experience that those railing loudest and longest against AGW are usually also the ones who don't really give a toss about all those other things you mention... unless/until their own piece of heaven is downwind of a smokestack or a dump, or it's their beach being eroded.

Thing is, all those things - pollution, resource depletion, loss of natural habitat, overfishing and mass extinction - have an almost identical solution in common: we need to stop consuming everything around us so quickly and making a mess in the process. Every move we make must be done with sustainability and minimal harm in mind. Anything done to fix any one of those usually helps at least a few of the others on your list as well.

tl;dr: you'd be railing against some other environmental concern if CC wasn't such a popular and convenient target, egged on by tribal allegiances, and industrial lobbyists and their alternate "institutes".

Rubbish. You're one of the first to slander oil because that is the focus of the CC brigade. You've even mentioned the term "industrial lobbyists" and we don't need to be Einstein to figure out this is yet another fossil fuel reference. One would have to wonder how many phones, computers, tablets, bottles of water, single use plastics et al all the CC bleeding hearts have purchased and disposed of over the past decade whilst bleating "the sky is falling"?





I've no doubt plenty of scientists are studying these more important issues. The problem is they're being drowned out by a very vocal segment and this has effects. There's no Kyota protocol for saving the rainforests of Borneo or South America, nor one for saving the fish stocks of the ocean nor one for reducing plastic waste. To take a leaf out of the CC doom saying playbook, Reducing greenhouse emissions to neutral by 2030 will exasperate these issues...

• More natural environments destroyed to accommodate wind and solar farms.
• More fish consumed because Sushi is preferable to raw beef when the power for cooking disappears with the sunset.
• Plastic waste will skyrocket as all the 20 year old "green" technology meets end of life. Want to recycle epoxy and carbon fibre? Nuh.

So, with that said, I'm actually quite pleased with being described as "like Ridd". Thx.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Rubbish. You're one of the first to slander oil because that is the focus of the CC brigade. You've even mentioned the term "industrial lobbyists" and we don't need to be Einstein to figure out this is yet another fossil fuel reference.

Do you hold their pamphlet in your left hand and type with your right, or is it the other way around? Our current and projected rates of fossil fuel use are hurting the planet, and squandering this finite and valuable resource.

One would have to wonder how many phones, computers, tablets, bottles of water, single use plastics et al all the CC bleeding hearts have purchased and disposed of over the past decade whilst bleating "the sky is falling"?

...probably less than the deniers and the don't cares.

Fossil fuel production, transport, use and CO2 increase are factors in these issues as well as in climate change:

• saving the rainforests (carbon sink)
• reducing plastic waste
• pollution (land, water, air)
• resource depletion
• loss of natural habitat

All of these issues and more would get better with reducing fossil fuel use, avoiding single-use plastics, and related moves towards conservation and sustainability. There is no remedy to these major environmental problems that doesn't also include a curb on FF production and use, in some fashion.

I've no doubt plenty of scientists are studying these more important issues. The problem is they're being drowned out by a very vocal segment and this has effects. There's no Kyota protocol for saving the rainforests of Borneo or South America, nor one for saving the fish stocks of the ocean nor one for reducing plastic waste.

Ridiculous. We have all these other problems festering because a 16 yr old Swede had a chat with the Pope?

You want to know why the CC debate is sucking up most of the oxygen? Because your FF besties want it like this. One issue (CC) that poses the greatest existential threat to the FF industries, that's also a proxy for all the other cleanups and reductions they also hope to avoid. One target to concentrate their resistance on. And legions of useful idiots to parrot their crap. If they can block action, or simply keep everyone confused and tied up in this bitter, dirty fight, they win all the marbles, and have much more leverage to slow the pace of the inevitable changes they will have to make sooner or later. Cos FF ain't forever, and AGW becomes harder to deny with every passing year.

Re Kyoto, I believe there are actually many internationally-discussed goals and timetables for those other serious problems too. But if you want some louder "Kyoto protocols" for them too, I know some people... I suspect you don't really want this, though.

To take a leaf out of the CC doom saying playbook, Reducing greenhouse emissions to neutral by 2030 will exasperate these issues...
(well, with all the crap and footdragging, we all know that 2030 goals can no longer be met. Thanks)

• More natural environments destroyed to accommodate wind and solar farms. Bull. Ever seen open pit coal mines? Oil spills? fields of abandoned oil derricks? Demolished coal generators? Wind generators don't take land, they take air. Put them on agricultural land, ridges, offshore Can you farm or fish an open-pit mine or a fossil-fuel-powered generator? Solar arrays? desert. What else are you doing with them? Don't forget nuclear and hydroelectric. And all the other ideas to be worked on: fusion, wave power, geothermal...
  
• More fish consumed because Sushi is preferable to raw beef when the power for cooking disappears with the sunset. Oh christ - too funny, that one
• Plastic waste will skyrocket as all the 20 year old "green" technology meets end of life. Want to recycle epoxy and carbon fibre? Nuh. Sorry. Yuh. Recycling. Ask yourself why they store the old blades, or bury them not too deep, instead of burning or dumping offshore. Blade recycling won't be that hard to solve. A concrete or paving additive. Engineered beams. Crush it fine enough for chop guns. Wind generators to catamarans!
  

That was a particularly rubbish list you gave, btw. I know there's better counter-points.

I get that Australia (like Canada and the US) makes too much sweet income from fossil fuel to back away from it easily. But denial of the consequences of this is still denial.

So, with that said, I'm actually quite pleased with being described as "like Ridd". Thx.

I was actually just pointing out the extent to which prof Ridd was possibly the sort of "alleged scientist scrambling over himself in the pursuit of sound bites and fortune", as least as much as those you were attempting to smear.

btw, I don't believe that doing scientific work even for fossil-fuel companies brings most scientists a "fortune". I believe oilfield and drill platform roughnecks can make way more, without the 6-10 year academic slog.

Anyway, seems the old AGW/CC debate is no closer to resolution than WW I in 1917. Nothing much has changed in the arguments. So we only need to do this every couple of years or so. See you here in 2022.

[Reefmagnet]

Ridd wasn't chasing fame and fortune. He was toiling at his profession of being one of the leading GBR experts long before he came to the media's attention. Even then it was probably more the amount raised from crowdfunding for fighting his legal battle with his former employer that caused the spotlight to shine in his direction.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The trick was switching from tree rings to temperature records and the travesty was not being able to eliminate the grapes of wrath heat from the first half of the twentieth century. Next question.

Fail - try again.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ridd wasn't chasing fame and fortune. He was toiling at his profession of being one of the leading GBR experts long before he came to the media's attention. Even then it was probably more the amount raised from crowdfunding for fighting his legal battle with his former employer that caused the spotlight to shine in his direction.

I can accept that. Why can't you accept that the majority of those in the same and related field are equally dedicated and motivated? The constant refrain of "alleged scientists scrambling over themselves in the pursuit of sound bites and fortune" and similar, levelled at the climate field, only serves to underscore how scientifically threadbare the anti-AGW case is.